From the report of the Provost Marshal-General in New Orleans, it appears that all the persons named above are unknown to the Consul of France at New Orleans, and that in the cases of Mattie, Chievre, and Phillipe, no evidence has been produced, or could be procured, either of the identity, citizenship, conduct, or losses of these persons. I cannot, therefore, recommend any action in regard to them at the present time, and in the present state of the proofs. In regard to the case of J. Gilbaux, it appears from the evidence and papers submitted that the articles taken from his shop on the 17th May, 1862, were contraband of war, and intended in part for the equipment of a Confederate battery; that he had been engaged in making up and furnishing to the Confederates, goods of a similar character, down to the time of the occupation of New Orleans by the forces of the United States; that the goods taken from his shop, as above stated, were, in part at least, used for the equipment and service of cavalry of the United States; and further, that the whole value of the goods so taken, instead of being about nine thousand dollars, as represented by said claimant, would not be much, if any, in excess of two hundred dollars. There is no proof of the nationality of the claimant, or that the goods taken were his property, and he seems to have forfeited any right that he might otherwise have had to favorable consideration as a French citizen, by violation of his duty as a neutral, and by aiding the rebellion. I would say, also, that even if the results of further inquiries should be favorable to the several claimants above named, this Department would be unable to satisfy those claims, as there is now no appropriation in its control from which they could lawfully be paid. (Signed) December 5, 1863. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 357.] CAPTAIN SHERWIN. The Secretary of State, June 10, 1863, addressed a letter to the Secretary of War, requesting the opinion of the Solicitor of the War Department in reference to a reply to Lord Lyons's note of May 27, in relation to the case of Captain Sherwin. On the 1st of July, 1863, Mr. Whiting submitted to the Secretary of State his views on the subject in an opinion in extenso, which is on record. On the 11th of November, 1863, the Secretary of State communicated a copy of a note from Lord Lyons, in which he renews the demand for adequate compensation in the case of Captain Sherwin, and suggests its reference to Mr. Whiting for examination. The Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, WAR DEPARTMENT, SOLICITOR'S OFFICE. Secretary of State. SIR: The letter addressed by you to the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, dated June 10, 1863, has been referred to me, in which you did me the honor to request any suggestions that might occur to the Solicitor of the War Department, with a view of answering Lord Lyons's note of the 27th ultimo, in relation to the case of Captain Sherwin, an alleged British subject. The pressure of other engagements has prevented an earlier reply. I now submit, with great deference and respect, the following memoranda for your consideration. I have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant, (Signed) WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. A claim against the government of the United States having been made by Her Majesty's government, in behalf of Captain John Sherwin, an alleged British subject, for damages suffered by him in consequence of an arrest and detention by military authority, in a time of active hostilities, during a rebellion involving a large portion of the inhabitants of this country, and there being no question of the fact that such arrest and imprisonment were so made, and that he was discharged therefrom without being held to answer over to any indictment of a grand jury, and that such imprisonment was, to a certain extent, injurious to him, the question remaining to be determined is, whether he is entitled, through the agency of Her Majesty's government, to claim indemnity from the United States. To establish such claim, Captain Sherwin must offer reasonable proof that he was, at the time of his arrest, a British subject. In recurring to the evidence on that point, it will be observed that there is no allegation in the letter of the Hon. William Stewart to the Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, that Captain Sherwin was, or ever had been, a British subject. An examination of the correspondence will show that it was not until the 27th of May, 1863, and in the letter of Lord Lyons of that date, that the fact of Captain Sherwin's citizenship for the first time appeared to be assumed or taken as true. In addition to this circumstance, which, doubtless, may be attributable to accidental oversight, no evidence is offered of the clearances or other papers connected with the voyage of the Rowena, and of the Dixie, in which Captain Sherwin had sailed, being American ships trading with American ports, whereby he might show whether he had or had not represented himself as a British subject. The fact, however, on which much reliance is placed, making it more necessary that proof of nationality should be furnished, is this, namely: that at the time of his arrest, and during the whole period of his imprisonment, he did not make known to this government that he claimed to be a subject of Great Britain, and did not request his release on that ground. Supposing, however, proof should be satisfactory on that question, other facts must then be considered. It appears from the evidence in the possession of the War Department, that Captain Sherwin, in the year 1862, was engaged in a clandestine and unlawful manner in taking on board of a ship, navigated by him and called the Dixie, and in transporting from Reedy Island, in Delaware River, certain persons whom he had reasonable cause to believe and to know were public enemies of the United States, for the purpose of enabling them to join those who were in arms against the government. He left the port of Philadelphia without having obtained license to carry passengers; he reported to the revenue cutter which overhauled his vessel after leaving port, that he had no passenger on board; but after that time he took up five persons at the island aforesaid, who were notorious secessionists, and who had been secreted several days; carried them out of the country, and transferred them at sea to a vessel bound for Nassau, N. P., with a view of enabling them to join their confederates in the rebellious States, or, at least, with the intention of enabling them to escape the performance of their legal obligation to serve as a part of the forces of the United States in the present war, they being subject to be drafted therein according to law. These proceedings were in direct violation of the laws of the United States and the Proclamation of the President, and were acts of hostility, according to the law martial. Having arrived at Nassau, Captain Sherwin there sold his vessel, returned to Philadelphia, and purchased another vessel. Under these circumstances there was good and reasonable cause known to the government for suspecting and believing that Captain John Sherwin was actively engaged in aiding and abetting public enemies of the United States to gain access to their allies, or at least to avoid a duty which they were, if loyal citizens, legally bound to perform, while at the same time he was violating the municipal laws thereof, in associating with those who were friendly to the insurgents, if not themselves active participants with them. The nature of the cargo of the Rowena, her place of destination, taken in connection with the former voyage to Nassau, and the sale of his vessel in a port which has furnished shelter and protection to the armed cruisers of the secessionists, and is the chief nucleus to which those persons resort who violate the Proclamation of Her Majesty and the blockade of the southern coast of the United States; and the other features of Captain Sherwin's proposed expedition, so plainly indicated his intention of renewing his former offences, as to afford justifiable cause for the seizure of his vessel, and the arrest and detention of his person in time of civil war. Under these circumstances, Captain Sherwin was arrested as a military prisoner, for the purpose of preventing him from continuing in hostile practices against the United States, and having been detained until it was believed that he might again be set at liberty without endangering the public safety, and that he would thereafter refrain from repeating his former offences, he was then discharged without punishment. [No. 362.] Indemnity to a French Subject. THEODORE MOREAU. The Secretary of State invites attention to the letter of the French Minister, relative to the complaint of Mons. Theodore Moreau, a French subject, tenant of one of the houses of Mr. Slidell, at New Orleans, who finds himself constrained, in consequence of the conscription law, to pay a second time to the Federal authorities, rents satisfied by him up to the expiration of his liability to Mr. Slidell. OPINION. In regard to the claim of Theodore Moreau, presented by the Minister of France to the Secretary of State, I have the honor to submit that, upon examination of the documents laid before me, I find the facts to be as follows: Theodore Moreau, a French citizen (and now resident in Paris), has through his agent, one Dumargeau, occupied for purposes of trade, a store in New Orleans, No. 36 St. Charles Street, belonging to Mr. John Slidell. This agent now complains that on the second day of July, he was compelled to pay to Captain McClure, Quarter-master in the service of the United States, the sum of $480, as rent for said property from November 1, 1862, to July 1, 1863, eight months, at the rate of $60 per month," although he had a written lease" from Mr. Slidell "arranged for by notes." He further alleges that he refused to pay this rent to the Quarter-master, when it was demanded, but was compelled to pay under protest, because his store was forcibly closed by military order. He does not allege any loss or damage arising from such closing. This claim was referred to the general commanding the Department of the Gulf for examination, and the report made by his order shows that this property, No. 36 St. Charles Street, New Orleans, had been leased by Mr. John Slidell to Mr. T. Moreau for a term of years; that this term expired November 1, 1862, and that Captain McClure, Quarter-master then in charge, made a contract with Moreau's agent, Dumargeau, to let it to him at a reduced rate, viz., at $60 per month, instead of $150 per month, which had been the stipulated rent up to that time; that Moreau's agent occupied the premises from November 1, 1862, to July 1, 1863, in pursuance of the said contract. He was then called on to pay the rent for the eight months which had elapsed, viz., $480; but this he refused to do. This refusal continuing, on the second day of July, the Quarter-master ordered the guard to close the store. This was done. On the third day of July Mr. Dumargeau, as Moreau's agent, paid the rent, and his store was again put in his possession without damage or loss. It further appears from the report, that at or about the time of the expiration of the lease from Slidell to Moreau, viz., November 1, 1862, Captain McClure, the Quarter-master, having charge of the Property Department, had, under the order confiscating Slidell's property, received from his agent the lease referred to and several of the notes given by Moreau in advance payment for the rent of this and an adjoining property, amounting to $3125; and as Moreau remained in occupation of the premises, his agent was called on to pay these notes. He professed inability, "plead poverty," and the United States authorities, upon his paying $1500, gave him up the whole of the notes, amounting, as above stated, to $3125, thus releasing him from a binding pecuniary obligation to the extent of $1625. The Quarter-master then reduced his rent, which had been, for this property, $150 per month, to $60 per month; and it is the enforced payment of the eight months' rent at the reduced rate, of which he now complains. The evidence shows further, that this Dumargeau was abusive and irritating in his language, denying the right of the United States authorities to collect the rent, and defying openly their power. It is not claimed, on behalf of Moreau, that he has as yet been compelled to pay double rent to any one, and he shows no pecuniary damage. On the contrary, it does appear that his notes to the amount of $1625 have been surrendered to him without payment; and his rent for a period of eight months has been reduced from $150 to $60 per month, being a saving of $720 additional. It may be remarked that Mr. Dumargeau alleges that this lease extended to October, 1863, but Captain McClure states positively that it expired November 1, 1862, and that the lease itself was given to him by Slidell's agent. Even if the term specified in the lease had not expired, Moreau's agent by contracting with Captain McClure, paying him $1500 for the notes, and receiving a surrender of the balance of $1625, and entering into a new contract to pay to the United States $60 per month- has lost any right that he might have had under the original lease, even if his own statement of the time be true. Mr Dumargeau further complains that the rents of certain parts of this |